CIT Vs. SADHNA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) being aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.5266(Del)/2010 relating to assessment year 2007-08. It appears that this appeal had been admitted for hearing by an order passed by this Court on 30.07.2012. However, learned counsel for the parties pointed out that there is some typographical error in the question of law which has been framed. Consequently, we reframe the substantial question of law as under: -

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts are that the assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 2,81,83,000/- under section 69B of the said Act on the basis of a valuation report which he received from the District Valuation Officer (DVO). This was in respect of purchase of a property by the respondent/ assessee at 2-B, Goela Lane, Under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. The assessee had disclosed that the said property had been purchased through two sale deeds dated 03.05.2006 for a total sum of Rs. 59,50,000/-. The purchase consideration as per the sale deeds signified a rate of Rs. 8,500/- per sq. yd., which appeared to be low to the assessing officer and, therefore, he referred the matter of valuation to the DVO. The DVO submitted his report and indicated that in his opinion the total fair market value ought to be Rs. 3,41,33,000/- as against the declared value of Rs. 59,50,000/-. The difference of Rs. 2,81,83,000/- was added by the assessing officer by invoking the provisions of Section 69B of the said Act.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said addition the respondent assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) who deleted the said addition after referring to the decision K.P. Varghese v. ITO, 1981 131 ITR 597. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the addition had been made on the basis of the valuation report without there being any other material to indicate that any extra consideration had passed in respect of the said purchase of property. Thereafter, the revenue, being aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which has been dismissed by the Tribunal by confirming the deletion made by the CIT (Appeals). The revenue is in appeal before us.